Upload
metroplanning
View
1.422
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Metropolitan Planning Council
www.metroplanning.org
Population Mobility in Chicago
June 4, 2007
The Metropolitan Planning Council is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of business and civic leaders committed to serving the public interest through the promotion and implementation of sensible planning and development policies necessary for a world-class Chicago region.
Population Mobility in Chicago
I. CORe GoalsII. Why Mobility MattersIII. Mobility in the RegionIV. Understanding MobilityV. Research ApproachesVI. CORe Approach
I. CORe Goals Test conventional wisdom about mobility choices Fill gaps in existing knowledge about mobility behavior
in Chicago Provide a portrait of salient factors influencing
mobility decisions Provide evidence about who comprises these groups Identify opportunities for policy interventions
II. Why Mobility Matters
When is mobility bad for neighborhoods?
Population Decline High Population Turnover
Disinvestment Weak bonds btwn. neighbors
Physical disorder Poor collective problem solving
Social disorder Loss of unique social fabric
Low racial and economic diversity
Services mismatch
III. Mobility in the Region
Components of Population Change: Region 1990-2000
Components of Population Change: Region 2000-2004
Population Change, 1990-2000
Map source: Metro Chicago Information Center http://info.mcfol.org/WWW/DataInfo/MapReports/mapPDF/Chicago_Pop_Chg_by_Number.pdf
National Migration from Cook County by Region
Out-Migrants In-migrantsMidwest 68% 64%
Northeast 5% 8%South 16% 16%West 11% 12%
Data from: County to County Migration Flow Files. Internal Revenue Service, 1993-2005.
Net Migration To/From Cook County, 1993-2005
Location In Out NetDupage Co., IL 192061 329457 -137,396Will Co., IL 56622 184921 -128,299Lake Co., IL 86362 185304 -98,942Kane Co., IL 42984 101536 -58,552Lake Co., IN 34544 80875 -46,331McHenry Co., IL 22379 68687 -46,308Phoenix, AZ 12080 37343 -25,263
Las Vegas, NV 5969 20801 -14,832Kankakee Co., IL 6518 13046 -6,528Twin Cities, MN 10611 15303 -4,692Dallas, TX 9304 13700 -4,396Los Angeles, CA 24226 14229 -4,282New York, NY 9947 15279 -3,553San Diego , CA 9858 12962 -3,104Milwaukee, WI 13105 16004 -2,899
Data from: County to County Migration Flow Files. Internal Revenue Service, 1993-2005.
In-migration to Cook County: National, 1993-2005
Data from: County to County Migration Flow Files. Internal Revenue Service, 1993-2005.
Out-migration from Cook County, National 1993-2005
Data from: County to County Migration Flow Files. Internal Revenue Service, 1993-2005.
In-migration to Cook County, Midwest Detail 1993-2005
Data from: County to County Migration Flow Files. Internal Revenue Service, 1993-2005.
Out-migration from Cook County, Midwest Detail 1993-2005
Data from: County to County Migration Flow Files. Internal Revenue Service, 1993-2005.
IV. Understanding Mobility
Why Do People Move Away?
Economics
• Housing• Employment• Transportation
Consumption: households move to the suburbs for more housing for less money?
Displacement: households forced out by rising rents/home prices?
Economics
• Housing• Employment• Transportation
Map source: “Immigration, Gentrification and Chicago Race/Ethnic Relations in the New Global Era,” Metro Chicago Information Center, 2004. available online at: http://info.mcfol.org/WWW/datainfo/hottopics/artsculture/immigration.asp?pagenbr=1.
Economic Gain/Decline, 1990-2000
Economics
• Housing• Employment• Transportation
Economics
• Housing• Employment• Transportation
Location
• Public Services/Amenities
• Schools
Environment
• Crime Levels• Environment for
children• Neighborhood
Stress
Why Do People Come?Why Do People Stay?
Economics
• Homeowner-ship• Employment• Transportation
Social Context
• Identity• Neighborhood
Attachment
Lifestyle
• City Amenities
V. Research Approaches Data Sources Challenges
Methods: Revealed Preference Analysis Attitudinal Surveys Stated Preference Surveys
Revealed Preference Analysis Looks at actual relocation decisions using census or
other data and examines characteristics of sending and receiving locations for significant differences
Uses location decisions as proxy for value of elements like schools
Problems: Difficult to model both individual level and
aggregate factors Lack of direct responses
Attitudinal Surveys Subjects rate their response to different aspects of
cities Metro Chicago Information Center Survey Pittsburgh Residents Survey Twin Cities Metro Residents Survey Kids in Cities College-Educated Survey
Relatively easy to administer Problems:
Respondents may misrepresent actual reasons for moving
Stated Preference Surveys Respondents compare randomized ‘bundles’ of neighborhood
attributes: Atlanta Smarttraq Project Edmonton Sensitivity to Elements of Urban Form and
Transportation Preferences for Neo Traditional Neighborhood Designs
(Columbus, OH) By forcing respondents to make tradeoffs, answers will be more
reliable Problems:
Some misrepresentation still possible Difficult to design More useful for understanding general preferences
Fill gaps in existing knowledge about mobility behavior in Chicago
Test conventional wisdom about mobility choices Provide a portrait of salient factors influencing
mobility decisions Provide detailed evidence about who comprises these
groups Identify opportunities for policy interventions
VI. CORe Approach
CORe Approach Who?
Groups vulnerable to decline Young families African-Americans Middle Class
Groups showing increases 20s and early 30-somethings Empty Nesters
Movers as well as potential movers
CORe Approach How?
Direct discussions with individuals about their own reasons for moving or staying
Detailed survey work? Analysis of neighborhoods, demographic change?
Why? Understand mobility in the context of indicators of
healthy neighborhoods